johngm

1 minute ago, SyedT said:

I see! In that case, getting the 5x36 mm FW and an extra 36 mm FW is the best way to go for your particular setup. 

But thats a spot on Idea of yours though regarding the 36mm filters. I'll message FLO tomorrow and see if they'll exchange the filters (obviously me paying the difference) and order a couple of carousels. They do have them in Stock.. Thanks again for the suggestion pal, cracking idea 👍

John

I also meant to say SYed, i wanted the integrated OAG, because i will be using it with my RC8 scope. I tested it today with my ED80 and ASI290mm mini on a distant aerial , at its prety much parfocal. Makes life so much easier.

John

10 minutes ago, SyedT said:

You'd have to purchase a 5x36mm carousel for the filter: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-5x-36mm-unmounted-filter-carousel-for-mini-filterwheel.html.

Since you've bought these items new, you could contact FLO and ask for an exchange for a 5x36 mm FW (https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-usb-mini-filter-wheel-5-x-36mm-with-oag.html) and 36 mm filters?

The other thing I'm thinking of is the number of filters you have. If you're hoping to do narrowband work in the future, then it'll be a pain to open up the FW and exchange the LRGB filters for narrowband filters and you'll expose them to dust as well. If so, getting a full-size FW would be better as it can accommodate 7x36mm filters: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-usb-filter-wheel.html The OAG is extra and so the whole setup is £169 more, but depends on what your preferences are.

Just looking on the FLO site now, and that might be an option to think about. I don't know if i could stretch to the extra £250 for the Midi wheel, however, at £39 a pop, could buy 2 X 5 pos 36mm wheels and have one for NB and one for BB. Just keep the one i'm not using in a sealed air tight zip bag. I have to ask though, surly this is a poor design if it cant except 1.25" screw filters the correct way around, and that is what it is marketed as

John

8 minutes ago, SyedT said:

This was an interesting read: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/blog/unmounted-filters-which-side-should-face-the-telescope/

Confirms that the non-reflective side should be towards the camera, and that the way they design the mounted filters would mean that putting them as you have in the first image is the only correct orientation. The only permanent solution not requiring experimentation with various ideas that I can think of would be to switch to unmounted filters as they sit right inside the carousel with a small portion jutting out.

Agreed regarding the filters, but this SX filter wheel doesn't appear to accommodate unmounted filters. There is no recess to sit the filter on, or screw holes to hold the filters in place.

John

27 minutes ago, Gmx76 said:

Always reminds me of Star Wars

Thats no moon 😂😂

Hi Everyone,

First, you are all welcome to blame me for the turn in the weather, because i have taken delivery from FLO of  a Starlight Xpress  trius Pro 694 mono camera + SX Mini filter with integrated OAG. Along with these, i purchased a 1.25" Baader LRGB CCD filter set . Now the problem is, when i screw in the filters, the knurled part of the Baader filter clashes with the Prism of the OAG. (Image 1). The only way i could get around this, was to screw the filters in from underneath ( camera side image 2). The operation of the filter wheel is fine in this configuration, but, aren't  these Baader Filters non reflective on the camera/thread side ? although, i must admit, i couldn't see any difference with my eyes. If they are inverted, the only way around i can see is unscrewing the collars that hold the glass in place and flipping them, but i worry i might scratch them. Any ideas ? especially would be interesting to here from other SX owners..

Anyway, these are the images i have taken of the issue.

3 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

I think that's a very good image and you have good star shapes which can be challenging with altaz imaging on your mount.

I would watch the background as that is very dark and you could be loosing some faint detail.

You might like this thread.

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/228101-the-no-eq-dso-challenge

Yes, i'll second that. Great image, but careful about clipping the data. As regards acquiring more data,  more is good 👍

John

Obviously, i was only working with a JPEG image. Just did a curve adjustment to the Highlights of the Red channel in PS, and increased Saturation and contrast.

John 

13 minutes ago, Celestron4 said:

Have you got any advice on how to improve the image?

Is this any better ?

On 03/05/2020 at 09:27, BGazing said:

ED 80 will be fine. Telecentric barlow in the Quark will bring it over f/30, which is enough.

Internal ERF should be sufficient for ED80 and, as per Daystar, on 120 too. Putting it further up the tube (ahead of diagonal on extension tube) would help. You need to use something that cuts BOTH UV and IR: UV/IR cut, Neodymium (IR-cut version) or 35nm. 2 inch diagonal is pretty much a a must if you want internal ERF, as this is the place where you mount your filter in 2 inch diagonal it will meet the light cone earlier.

Any portable phone charging battery capable of supplying 2A would do. Unfortunately, they all tend to cut off when no power is necessary.  So does Celestron Power Tank...

Make sure to test it for the 'best' setting. Do not assume that 0 setting will be on band. Mine is on band fully CCW (-5).

 

 I am also in the process of purchasing the quark, but why the 2" 35nm filter and not the 1.25", when the imaging/viewing area has thread for a 1.25" filter ? maybe i'm missing something.

1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

They mass produce the mica etalons then grade them saving the best ones for their high end filters then the rest go to the Quark, not sure how they decide a cut off point, must be a temptation to slip a few borderline ones through if the demand is there.

Another "problem" is that they only post pictures from top performing Quarks on their site.

Dave

I've also noticed that Youtube Vlogers who have large followings are also given premium examples for reviews. Chucks Astrophotography is a prime example, although i will admit i like his channel.

John

56 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Don't think things have improved particularly, I have new last March  that failed before Christmas, waiting for the present situation to improve before returning it.

The main problem is that there is no such thing as a normal Quark so everyone is different and while supposedly meets some sort of minimum standard they all vary and Daystar admit this on their site in so many words.

Dave

Thanks for the feedback Dave. So, it sounds like they haven't been listening to there customers concerns, and have not improved there quality control.  I do understand your point also, about variation, and expectations, but you would think a company like Daystar would have a set minimum standard, and the optics fully checked before dispatch. 

Regards John 

7 hours ago, Carbon Brush said:

In late 2018 I wanted to upgrade from my PST. I looked at quark vs Lunt vs PST+mods and other options.

Like you I found a lot of problems reported that may have been in part due to Daystar trying to push a new product in time for an eclipse.
I asked questions on SGL and got a lot of very informed responses.

At the end of the day I decided on an established 'works out of the box' Lunt scope (a used LS60 package).
The idea being that if I got poor quark results the seller might argue it is my scope, erf, etc.

At the 2019 Practical Astronomy Show I spoke with a couple of retailers and a scope expert reviewer about quark and complete solar scopes from Daystar.
Basically I could not find anyone able to persuade me that the Daystar offerings were good. There was no history.
How could they offer a complete scope for less than a Quark, etc? No real answers.

More than a year on, there should be more information and experience from users about the Daystar offerings.

On my LS60. I have been very happy. Like everyone, I am just waiting for a more active sun.
The blue filter (a common issue) was a bit cloudy. Bresser sent me free replacement without issue.

Keep asking and if you need links to the threads where I was asking questions, I will try to dig them out.

Good luck.

David.

Cheers David, if you can dig out those links, that would be appreciated.

John

Hi All,

I am considering purchasing a Daystar Quark Chromosphere, but having researched the forums, including SGL, it seems though there are or were a lot of quality issues. Unfortunately, most of these reviews/posts seem to be from around 2015 - 2016. I would like to here from people who have purchased one in the last couple of years and find out if there Quality control has improved, or is it still a lottery.

Thanks in advance

John

1 minute ago, Zakalwe said:

35 nanometre

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/narrowband/baader-narrowband-ccd-emission-line-h-alpha-filters-2.html

Thanks again Zak

John

5 minutes ago, Steve Clay said:

I'm awaiting delivery of the quark cromosphere. The advice that I was given was with the ED 80 was no other filter was essential. However,  again based on advice from here I've opted for the baader HA 35nm filter instead of the UV/IR cut offerings. Can't help on the flattener as I'm visual only.

Steve

Ha 35nm ? are you refering to the 3.5nm ? cannot see a 35nm. Do you have a link please

Cheers

3 minutes ago, Zakalwe said:

No, you do not use the field flatteners.

Also, a Baader 35Nm hydrogen alpha filter makes a better ERF than a UV/IR filter. It blocks a LOT more heat than the UV/IR filter.

Thanks for the Advice Zak 👍

John

Hi All,

I am considering purchasing a Daystar quark Chromosphere eyepiece to use in conjunction with my altair 60EDF and Skywatcher ED80 scopes. Along with this, i will get an astronomik L1 UV/IR Blocking filter. My query is, do i still need to use the field flatteners when solar viewing / imaging ?

Thanks in advance John

16 hours ago, vlaiv said:

No, it has D32 AR window.

AR stands for Anti-Reflective.

You can find more about ZWO camera cover windows here:

https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/zwo-protective-window-asi-cameras

As well as camera models having each (there are simple AR cover windows and IR/UV cut windows - depending on camera model)

You are correct Vlaiv, i just checked, i must have been getting confused with one of the other cameras i was looking at 👍

John

Hi Francis,

I'm a bit late to this party, but i'm reviewing dedicated astro cams myself, as i intend purchasing one in the not to distant future. Still haven't decided yet. OSC, Mono, CCD, or CMOS. I see in your post, you are using a Baader UV/IR cut filter ?. I am quite puzzled by this, because reading up on it, it has a built in UV/IR cut filter. Can you shed some light on your train of thought ?

Regards John

Hi Fellow stargazers.

Tonight, i wanted to try a shot a star trails, which is something i have never attempted. I am after advice. I live in a Bortle 5 area. I have done some reading up on the subject, and i will be shooting around 30s images, with a couple of second pause between each images. I will be using my Canon 100D @ISO 800. 

Would you recommend i use my Astronomik LP clip filter as my exposures will be limited ot 30s ?

What would be the best lens for me to use from the following;

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8

Canon 40mm f2.8 prime lens 

or my 18-55mm kit lens

Guidance much appreciated.

John

Stay safe all 👍

John

I know its a Meade, but the principle will be the same

John

This may help you on your way.

John

+1 for Alan's comments. Drop the Aperture down a couple of stops, especially when using zoom lenses.

John